-
Orion Spacecraft Q & A
by
Raj2014
on 21 May, 2017 18:33
-
Hello everyone,
It has been a long time since I posted here. I started this topic because I got a message about starting a new topic, so this topic is to continue an old one,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11997.160.
Has there been any changes made to the Orion EM-1 from the Orion EFT-1? If yes, what are the changes?
-
#1
by
rayleighscatter
on 22 May, 2017 20:32
-
The main heat shield has been changed to a monolithic form as opposed to many individual parts. The thermal tiles on the side (look like Space Shuttle tiles) will be getting a highly reflective coating instead of the bare tiles seen on EFT-1.
-
#2
by
Raj2014
on 22 May, 2017 23:41
-
The main heat shield has been changed to a monolithic form as opposed to many individual parts. The thermal tiles on the side (look like Space Shuttle tiles) will be getting a highly reflective coating instead of the bare tiles seen on EFT-1.
Why have they decided to change to those items? Will it reduce mass, manufacturing time and cost? What will the coating do?
-
#3
by
brickmack
on 24 May, 2017 19:22
-
Its basically a new design. EFT-1 didn't have a service module at all, so EVERYTHING there is new. On the CM, they changed the heat shield to be more easily manufactured (its now made in tiles like the bottom of Dragon, instead of a single piece), the backshell TPS has a new coating on it for additional protection and on-orbit thermal control, the pressure vessel has been redesigned to need fewer welds (lower mass and easier manufacturing), changes to the parachutes and inflatable floatation devices have been made based on issues encountered on EFT-1, the computers are new, and it will carry some life support test equipment.
-
#4
by
Raj2014
on 28 May, 2017 19:39
-
Its basically a new design. EFT-1 didn't have a service module at all, so EVERYTHING there is new. On the CM, they changed the heat shield to be more easily manufactured (its now made in tiles like the bottom of Dragon, instead of a single piece), the backshell TPS has a new coating on it for additional protection and on-orbit thermal control, the pressure vessel has been redesigned to need fewer welds (lower mass and easier manufacturing), changes to the parachutes and inflatable floatation devices have been made based on issues encountered on EFT-1, the computers are new, and it will carry some life support test equipment.
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
-
#5
by
Jim
on 29 May, 2017 12:46
-
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
No different than the shuttle
-
#6
by
Raj2014
on 29 May, 2017 23:42
-
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
No different than the shuttle
Is that not a problem that needs to be solved? Do not want the heat to burn the inside of the C.M and destroy it. Already there has been a past incident of missing titles. I do not want to see it happen again.
-
#7
by
DaveS
on 30 May, 2017 00:15
-
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
No different than the shuttle
Is that not a problem that needs to be solved? Do not want the heat to burn the inside of the C.M and destroy it. Already there has been a past incident of missing titles. I do not want to see it happen again.
Debonded tiles (not titles) were only a problem very early in the program. Once they had perfected the tile-bonding the only concerns were actual damage. Part of the issue was the water-proofing agent used early in the program which was of the shelf 3M ScotchGuard sprayed directly onto the tiles.
This didn't work too well with the adhesive used to bond the tiles to the skin of the orbiters which caused such issues that STS-51C was reassigned from Challenger to Discovery because Challenger had tile adhesion problems severe enough to warrant changing the bodyflap on Challenger with the one originally intended for Atlantis which was undergoing final assembly in Palmdale.
After these issues they came up with a new tile water-proofing agent (Dimethylethoxysilane) which is injected directly into each tile with a needleless gun in the OPF. This pretty much took care of the tile adhesion issues once and for all.
-
#8
by
Lars-J
on 31 May, 2017 04:41
-
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
No different than the shuttle
Is that not a problem that needs to be solved? Do not want the heat to burn the inside of the C.M and destroy it. Already there has been a past incident of missing titles. I do not want to see it happen again.
Dragon has been flying with a tiled heat shield for a while now. No tiles have been lost, as far as I know. That aspect of Orion does not worry me at all.
Once a heat shield reaches a certain size, a monolithic piece becomes impractical.
-
#9
by
woods170
on 31 May, 2017 06:05
-
Fascinating. With the heat shield made of titles, how do they solve the issue of a title or titles disconnecting from the C.M?
No different than the shuttle
Is that not a problem that needs to be solved? Do not want the heat to burn the inside of the C.M and destroy it. Already there has been a past incident of missing titles. I do not want to see it happen again.
Dragon has been flying with a tiled heat shield for a while now. No tiles have been lost, as far as I know. That aspect of Orion does not worry me at all.
Once a heat shield reaches a certain size, a monolithic piece becomes impractical.
The funny thing is that LockMart was warned in advance that a monolithic heat shield for Orion would likely have cracking issues due to it's size in combination with the use of an injected honeycomb structure. Those warnings were partly based on experience with cracking issues of the Apollo primary heatshield.
Despite the warnings, LockMart went with the monolithic design anyway, only to experience cracking issues during manufacture. Those required repairs, delaying the delivery of the primary heat shield and triggering an R&D effort for a segmented heat shield.
During EFT-1 post-flight inspections more cracks were found. That only served to confirm the change in direction towards a segmented primary heat shield.
A monolithic heat shield has a further disadvantage: it requires an immensely stiff, and thus heavy, carrier structure. Now that Orion will have a segmented heat shield the carrier structure has been re-designed as well. It doesn't have to be as stiff as the old design. Consequently, the new design is quite a bit less heavy than the previous one.
-
#10
by
Lars-J
on 31 May, 2017 06:29
-
And the even bigger irony is (IMO) that NASA rejected PICA because it would have to be applied using tiles. And now they are back to Avcoat with tiles.
-
#11
by
woods170
on 31 May, 2017 06:46
-
And the even bigger irony is (IMO) that NASA rejected PICA because it would have to be applied using tiles. And now they are back to Avcoat with tiles.
No, that was not the primary reason to reject PICA. The primary reason was lack of experience base for large-scale application of PICA. It had been used on missions only one time before: a small-scale application of PICA as the primary heatshield material for the Stardust sample return probe.
While SpaceX had, at the time of selection of Avcoat for Orion in 2009, completed development of PICA-X, there was no large-scale flight experience with PICA(-X) yet. Therefore, NASA went for the one material they knew much about: Avcoat.
-
#12
by
Raj2014
on 31 May, 2017 13:18
-
Since the Dragon capsules has used PICA-X titled heat shields for several launches. Why has Lockheed Martin or NASA not decided to use it for the Orion's heat shield?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 31 May, 2017 13:22
-
Since the Dragon capsules has used PICA-X titled heat shields for several launches. Why has Lockheed Martin or NASA not decided to use it for the Orion's heat shield?
PICA-X is Spacex propriety material and is not available
-
#14
by
baldusi
on 31 May, 2017 14:25
-
Since the Dragon capsules has used PICA-X titled heat shields for several launches. Why has Lockheed Martin or NASA not decided to use it for the Orion's heat shield?
PICA-X is Spacex propriety material and is not available
Did NASA tried to request SpaceX to be the heatshield subcontractor for Orion and they flat denied or they have simply not made the RFQ and is not a pure NASA product?
-
#15
by
whitelancer64
on 31 May, 2017 14:56
-
Since the Dragon capsules has used PICA-X titled heat shields for several launches. Why has Lockheed Martin or NASA not decided to use it for the Orion's heat shield?
PICA-X is Spacex propriety material and is not available
Did NASA tried to request SpaceX to be the heatshield subcontractor for Orion and they flat denied or they have simply not made the RFQ and is not a pure NASA product?
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 specified the use of existing contractors for SLS and Orion.
-
#16
by
Lars-J
on 31 May, 2017 16:18
-
PICA-X is Spacex propriety material and is not available
Did NASA tried to request SpaceX to be the heatshield subcontractor for Orion and they flat denied or they have simply not made the RFQ and is not a pure NASA product?
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 specified the use of existing contractors for SLS and Orion.
But not every subcontractor. Was any attempt made by LM to sub-contract or license PICA-X from SpaceX? I sincerely doubt it.
-
#17
by
baldusi
on 31 May, 2017 17:21
-
PICA-X is Spacex propriety material and is not available
Did NASA tried to request SpaceX to be the heatshield subcontractor for Orion and they flat denied or they have simply not made the RFQ and is not a pure NASA product?
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 specified the use of existing contractors for SLS and Orion.
But not every subcontractor. Was any attempt made by LM to sub-contract or license PICA-X from SpaceX? I sincerely doubt it.
I think that currently PICA-X is the most proven non-ceramic/CCM heat shield material made in the US. When they decided to change to tiled, I don't see how the law would interfere.
-
#18
by
Dante80
on 31 May, 2017 18:49
-
Is there anything wrong with Avcoat when used in tiles? Why would NASA want to change to PICA anyway?
-
#19
by
Lars-J
on 31 May, 2017 19:15
-
Is there anything wrong with Avcoat when used in tiles? Why wound NASA want to change to PICA anyway?
Cost. Primarily because it is very labor intensive to hand-inject every cell in the honeycomb.
-
#20
by
Dante80
on 31 May, 2017 19:42
-
Is there anything wrong with Avcoat when used in tiles? Why wound NASA want to change to PICA anyway?
Cost. Primarily because it is very labor intensive to hand-inject every cell in the honeycomb.
Wouldn't changing to PICA after EFT-1 showed cracks introduce a lot more development cost (and schedule overrun)? Recurring cost differences are almost completely irrelevant for a flagship spacecraft like Orion (and the number of missions that is projected to have).
Also, what would changing the material do to the weight of the system (shield + structure)? (any guesses, I have no idea)
-
#21
by
Raj2014
on 06 Jun, 2017 23:24
-
Is there anything wrong with Avcoat when used in tiles? Why wound NASA want to change to PICA anyway?
Cost. Primarily because it is very labor intensive to hand-inject every cell in the honeycomb.
Wouldn't changing to PICA after EFT-1 showed cracks introduce a lot more development cost (and schedule overrun)? Recurring cost differences are almost completely irrelevant for a flagship spacecraft like Orion (and the number of missions that is projected to have).
Also, what would changing the material do to the weight of the system (shield + structure)? (any guesses, I have no idea)
It is best to have the heat shield strong but not adding mass that will negatively effect the Orion spacecraft.
-
#22
by
Raj2014
on 13 Aug, 2017 20:23
-
What is the height of the crew module of the Orion Spacecraft? I have looked at some websites but can not get an accurate measurement. Sources say it is 3.3 metres tall. Is the Orion C.M taller than the Apollo C.M?
-
#23
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2017 22:10
-
What is the height of the crew module of the Orion Spacecraft? I have looked at some websites but can not get an accurate measurement. Sources say it is 3.3 metres tall. Is the Orion C.M taller than the Apollo C.M?
Yes, because it is has the same form factor as Apollo CM and it is wider.
-
#24
by
Raj2014
on 17 Aug, 2017 21:07
-
How tall is the Apollo C.M? On the research I have done, some of the websites shows 3.23 metres tall. Is this correct?
-
#25
by
whitelancer64
on 17 Aug, 2017 21:33
-
How tall is the Apollo C.M? On the research I have done, some of the websites shows 3.23 metres tall. Is this correct?
The Apollo CM, from the base of its heat shield to the tip of its docking probe, was 10 ft. 7 in, or 3.23 meters in height.
The Orion CM, from the base of its heat shield to the top of its forward bay cover, is 10ft. 10 in, or 3.3 meters in height. This height does NOT include its docking system.
-
#26
by
Raj2014
on 27 Sep, 2017 20:43
-
Thank you whitelancer64 for the information. I have a idea here. Can they combine the H.I.A.D (Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator) to the Orion Spacecraft so you can also have the service module returned and re-used, would this not bring down costs and save time? Has N.A.S.A looked into this?
-
#27
by
whitelancer64
on 27 Sep, 2017 20:50
-
Thank you whitelancer64 for the information. I have a idea here. Can they combine the H.I.A.D (Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator) to the Orion Spacecraft so you can also have the service module returned and re-used, would this not bring down costs and save time? Has N.A.S.A looked into this?
It probably could be done, but it would require a major redesign - and that may cost much more time than it is worth. Also it is the ESA that is building the service module.
-
#28
by
Raj2014
on 27 Sep, 2017 21:12
-
Thank you whitelancer64 for the information. I have a idea here. Can they combine the H.I.A.D (Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator) to the Orion Spacecraft so you can also have the service module returned and re-used, would this not bring down costs and save time? Has N.A.S.A looked into this?
It probably could be done, but it would require a major redesign - and that may cost much more time than it is worth. Also it is the ESA that is building the service module.
True E.S.A is building the S.M but really a major redesign? What I find surprised is that the inflatable heat shield technology has been researched for some time and that they have not thought about it or at list made design plans for a future upgrade for the Orion spacecraft. Is the Orion going to, or not, get upgraded over the years with newer technologies and efficiency?
-
#29
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2017 00:12
-
Thank you whitelancer64 for the information. I have a idea here. Can they combine the H.I.A.D (Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator) to the Orion Spacecraft so you can also have the service module returned and re-used, would this not bring down costs and save time? Has N.A.S.A looked into this?
It probably could be done, but it would require a major redesign - and that may cost much more time than it is worth. Also it is the ESA that is building the service module.
True E.S.A is building the S.M but really a major redesign? What I find surprised is that the inflatable heat shield technology has been researched for some time and that they have not thought about it or at list made design plans for a future upgrade for the Orion spacecraft. Is the Orion going to, or not, get upgraded over the years with newer technologies and efficiency?
Yes, it is a major design. inflatable heat shield technology still needs work. It is not useable for the SM, still need a solid heat shield, the inflatable part is just an extension. Plus the SM would need parachutes and the ability to land on water. The SM is not designed for reuse.
The Orion hasn't even flown once as a fully operational vehicle, it is not going be upgraded for some time, if at all.
why do you keep asking about upgrades? The basic vehicle hasn't been built yet
-
#30
by
Nibb31
on 28 Sep, 2017 10:40
-
HIAD is a decelerator, not a heat shield.
-
#31
by
envy887
on 28 Sep, 2017 13:32
-
HIAD is a decelerator, not a heat shield.
If it decelerates using hypersonic atmospheric compression, it had better also be a heat shield or it won't work well.
-
#32
by
theinternetftw
on 26 Dec, 2017 22:06
-
Can anyone speak to the history of Orion's delta-v number? Why did they decide to initially rely on Altair for LOI? And why have low delta-v numbers persisted after Altair's cancellation and, later, a complete change in who's doing the SM? What's driving this lack of capability? (and is "lack of capability" an accurate perception of Orion's delta-v budget?)
-
#33
by
Jim
on 28 Dec, 2017 16:30
-
Can anyone speak to the history of Orion's delta-v number? Why did they decide to initially rely on Altair for LOI? And why have low delta-v numbers persisted after Altair's cancellation and, later, a complete change in who's doing the SM? What's driving this lack of capability? (and is "lack of capability" an accurate perception of Orion's delta-v budget?)
High delta-V is unneeded. There is no lack of capability
-
#34
by
Proponent
on 28 Dec, 2017 17:22
-
Can anyone speak to the history of Orion's delta-v number? Why did they decide to initially rely on Altair for LOI?
My guess is that the low delta-V was needed to allow launch on Ares I, which in turn was needed for political reasons. Just my guess.
-
#35
by
envy887
on 28 Dec, 2017 17:48
-
Can anyone speak to the history of Orion's delta-v number? Why did they decide to initially rely on Altair for LOI?
My guess is that the low delta-V was needed to allow launch on Ares I, which in turn was needed for political reasons. Just my guess.
Ares 1 was canceled 8 years ago. The SM could have been enhanced, but there was no initiative by the powers of the time to go anywhere beyond it's current capabilities. If going to the lunar surface is now once again an objective, Orion is underfueled and that capability will have to be made up by a larger lander or on-orbit fueling.
-
#36
by
Jim
on 29 Dec, 2017 00:08
-
If going to the lunar surface is now once again an objective, Orion is underfueled and that capability will have to be made up by a larger lander or on-orbit fueling.
Not true. It has plenty of propellant to get into lunar orbit and back. If a lander is involved, then the lander should provide its own delta V. Apollo conop is not the only nor correct one.
-
#37
by
brickmack
on 29 Dec, 2017 00:14
-
SLS seems little better than Ares 1 for SM sizing though. Orion is near the limit of Block 1 performance to TLI, and Block 1B allows only ~10 tons margin to that trajectory for comanifested payload, which a larger SM will directly reduce. The new Orion Main Engine from EM-3 onwards could improve this without much increase in mass (depending on what engine is selected), but probably not substantially.
-
#38
by
envy887
on 29 Dec, 2017 01:37
-
SLS seems little better than Ares 1 for SM sizing though. Orion is near the limit of Block 1 performance to TLI, and Block 1B allows only ~10 tons margin to that trajectory for comanifested payload, which a larger SM will directly reduce. The new Orion Main Engine from EM-3 onwards could improve this without much increase in mass (depending on what engine is selected), but probably not substantially.
A larger SM could increase co-manifested payload to TLI, since it can drop the 15 tonnes of EUS and act as another stage.
If going to the lunar surface is now once again an objective, Orion is underfueled and that capability will have to be made up by a larger lander or on-orbit fueling.
Not true. It has plenty of propellant to get into lunar orbit and back. If a lander is involved, then the lander should provide its own delta V. Apollo conop is not the only nor correct one.
The lander will already have to provide over 5,000 m/s of delta-v, while Orion can only provide about 1,300. Adding that dry mass to a stage that has to go to the lunar surface and back is inefficient. Could it be done? Sure. Will it make the lander bigger, more complex, and more expensive? Most likely.
-
#39
by
Patchouli
on 29 Dec, 2017 03:49
-
Can anyone speak to the history of Orion's delta-v number? Why did they decide to initially rely on Altair for LOI?
My guess is that the low delta-V was needed to allow launch on Ares I, which in turn was needed for political reasons. Just my guess.
Another reason Altair was intended to also be a cargo lander capable of landing large payloads for a lunar base on the moon which meant it had to be able to do LOI without Orion to maximize payload.
-
#40
by
Raj2014
on 10 Jan, 2018 19:43
-
Anyone have or know where I can find the latest images of the ESM? I have looked myself but the dates are very old. I want to compare to an image from a ESA video showing the Orion CM and ESM together and there is a dish attached to the back of the ESM.
-
#41
by
brickmack
on 11 Jan, 2018 14:39
-
-
#42
by
Raj2014
on 12 Jan, 2018 00:07
-
-
#43
by
brickmack
on 12 Jan, 2018 16:45
-
Looks like that video is just using the Orion CEV service module with ATV-style solar wings instead of the UltraFlex panels from CEV. Note the larger Orion Main Engine and the 4 pods jutting out from the sides for the auxiliary thrusters, among other issues. CEV did plan to use such a dish.
-
#44
by
whitelancer64
on 23 Apr, 2018 21:19
-
Do we have any reliable statement or estimate for the per-unit cost / cost per build of the Orion spacecraft?
-
#45
by
theinternetftw
on 23 Apr, 2018 22:49
-
Do we have any reliable statement or estimate for the per-unit cost / cost per build of the Orion spacecraft?
According to
this presentation from Edgar Zapata (page 10, pdf warning) it's $980M per-unit production costs if you build one a year, $654M if you build two a year, and $1,672M if you build less than one a year.
-
#46
by
whitelancer64
on 23 Apr, 2018 23:29
-
Do we have any reliable statement or estimate for the per-unit cost / cost per build of the Orion spacecraft?
According to this presentation from Edgar Zapata (page 10, pdf warning) it's $980M per-unit production costs if you build one a year, $654M if you build two a year, and $1,672M if you build less than one a year.
That's fantastic, thank you. Interesting to see the Dragon v2 and Starliner cost estimates there too
-
#47
by
mobile1
on 24 Jun, 2018 13:52
-
NASA built the Orion capsule. For what will it be used?
-
#48
by
zhangmdev
on 24 Jun, 2018 14:06
-
-
#49
by
Hog
on 25 Jun, 2018 16:18
-
Orion also was on orbit during its December 2014 flight test (EFT-1) that lasted for about 4 hours 24 minutes.
It is planned to be used atop NASA's heavy lifter, the Space Launch System.
-
#50
by
EnigmaSCADA
on 25 Jun, 2018 23:15
-
<never mind, I don't want to spoil the ending for others>
-
#51
by
whitelancer64
on 06 Dec, 2018 15:12
-
How much hydrazine does the Orion carry for its thrusters?
I'm wondering about the Orion capsule itself, NOT in the service module.
-
#52
by
whitelancer64
on 07 Dec, 2018 14:53
-
Orion has 12 thrusters for use in-space and during reentry. From what I've read, it's dual-redundant with two separate fuel lines. However, none of the documentation says how large the fuel tanks within the Orion capsule are, or how much hydrazine Orion is actually carrying.
-
#53
by
whitelancer64
on 10 Jul, 2019 22:15
-
If going to the lunar surface is now once again an objective, Orion is underfueled and that capability will have to be made up by a larger lander or on-orbit fueling.
Not true. It has plenty of propellant to get into lunar orbit and back. If a lander is involved, then the lander should provide its own delta V. Apollo conop is not the only nor correct one.
How close of an orbit can Orion theoretically get? Like, what's the lowest circular orbit around the Moon it could achieve? While still having enough fuel to return to Earth, of course.
-
#54
by
Proponent
on 10 Jul, 2019 22:29
-
We had a discussion about this a while ago. I believe a number around 500 km was mentioned.
-
#55
by
whitelancer64
on 10 Jul, 2019 23:12
-
We had a discussion about this a while ago. I believe a number around 500 km was mentioned.
Wow, that's a bit lower than I thought was possible.
-
#56
by
ncb1397
on 11 Jul, 2019 00:34
-
We had a discussion about this a while ago. I believe a number around 500 km was mentioned.
Wow, that's a bit lower than I thought was possible.
Can't seem to achieve a circular 500 km orbit with only 650 m/s of dV. I think it is more like 2000 km or about 1 lunar radius in altitude. Going from 500 km to 100 km lunar orbit is only about 80 m/s. Orion's deficit is more than that (more like 250 m/s).
-
#57
by
whitelancer64
on 11 Jul, 2019 15:44
-
We had a discussion about this a while ago. I believe a number around 500 km was mentioned.
Wow, that's a bit lower than I thought was possible.
Can't seem to achieve a circular 500 km orbit with only 650 m/s of dV. I think it is more like 2000 km or about 1 lunar radius in altitude. Going from 500 km to 100 km lunar orbit is only about 80 m/s. Orion's deficit is more than that (more like 250 m/s).
That's still pretty close! I know that early on (years ago) they were looking at 10,000 km circular lunar orbits as the "reference" mission for Orion, so I'm impressed.
